Annotation #6 Word count: 85 1. Title, director and release year? Title: “College, Inc.” Director: John Maggio, Martin Smith (Writers) Release Year: 2010
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main focus of the film is college privatization and for profit school conversion. This is considered to be a serious problem because it is, essentially, making business out of education. Once schools become for profit and start growing like University of Phoenix the main goal becomes to generate revenue. This creates a situation where many universities spend only about ten percent of the budget on providing the education that is publically advertized.
This is where education turns into business only. When for profit schools like University of Phoenix invest more money in advertizing and recruiting than corporations like FedEx it has to be seriously questioned [1].
3.How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Many negative factors related to this type of education are presented. One of the main factors presented in this film is the rate of debt repayment. While for profit school students represent only ten percent of all students they are responsible for nearly half of all loan defaults. This by itself demonstrates how poor the quality of such education is.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The danger here is fast foodalization of education itself. When it comes to economic aspects, the reason this type of “business” is around is because billions of federal aid money flow with not that much regulation. This problem is currently being addressed by the department of education but since some of these schools are, in fact, multibillion dollar corporations they have big law firms that lobby for them and protect them.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
There was an interview with an enrollment counselor from Ashford University which is another for profit school. In that interview, the counselor said, “we are forced to do anything necessary to get people to fill out the application…our jobs depend on it”. This means that if you are paid based on how many students you enroll you will enroll pretty much anybody. There was a government Lawsuit against University of Phoenix for similar aggressive recruitment policies but the university avoided the trial by settling out of court for 67.5 million dollars.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The only thing that I did not like was the fact that they did not discuss some of the benefits of this system. For example, these schools don’t have a tenure system in place which in certain conditions could be a good thing. If professors don’t meet the needs they just don’t get another contract unlike in regular schools where the tenure gives you “untouchable” status.
7.What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses younger audience by trying to expose some of the truths behind these types of schools. Many of these schools portray themselves and their graduates as successful professionals through powerful and expensive advertisements. However, when people get those degrees and leave those schools already knee deep in debt they realize that they have been fooled and those degrees don’t mean anything. This is the type of truth that the makers of this film want people to know.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would be great if this film got more publicity. This most certainly can be a good solution or at least a start. If you have a cure to a disease but nobody knows about it then what’s the point?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
It is implied that lawmakers should look into specific regulations that would change the way these mega schools do business. Also, it suggests that people who are planning to go to college should research information about the schools they plan to attend.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I found a documentary that brings up yet another problem with college education. In this documentary, however, the main focus is the cost of college. The film makers analyze whether it is still valuable to have a degree and try to find out if it pays off in the end. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/college-conspiracy/
I was also curious about the current tenure situation and was able to find an article that goes over many pros and cons of having it. http://teachertenure.procon.org/
Word count: 85
1. Title, director and release year?
Title: “College, Inc.”
Director: John Maggio, Martin Smith (Writers)
Release Year: 2010
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main focus of the film is college privatization and for profit school conversion. This is considered to be a serious problem because it is, essentially, making business out of education. Once schools become for profit and start growing like University of Phoenix the main goal becomes to generate revenue. This creates a situation where many universities spend only about ten percent of the budget on providing the education that is publically advertized.
This is where education turns into business only. When for profit schools like University of Phoenix invest more money in advertizing and recruiting than corporations like FedEx it has to be seriously questioned [1].
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Many negative factors related to this type of education are presented. One of the main factors presented in this film is the rate of debt repayment. While for profit school students represent only ten percent of all students they are responsible for nearly half of all loan defaults. This by itself demonstrates how poor the quality of such education is.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The danger here is fast foodalization of education itself. When it comes to economic aspects, the reason this type of “business” is around is because billions of federal aid money flow with not that much regulation. This problem is currently being addressed by the department of education but since some of these schools are, in fact, multibillion dollar corporations they have big law firms that lobby for them and protect them.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
There was an interview with an enrollment counselor from Ashford University which is another for profit school. In that interview, the counselor said, “we are forced to do anything necessary to get people to fill out the application…our jobs depend on it”. This means that if you are paid based on how many students you enroll you will enroll pretty much anybody. There was a government Lawsuit against University of Phoenix for similar aggressive recruitment policies but the university avoided the trial by settling out of court for 67.5 million dollars.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The only thing that I did not like was the fact that they did not discuss some of the benefits of this system. For example, these schools don’t have a tenure system in place which in certain conditions could be a good thing. If professors don’t meet the needs they just don’t get another contract unlike in regular schools where the tenure gives you “untouchable” status.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think it addresses younger audience by trying to expose some of the truths behind these types of schools. Many of these schools portray themselves and their graduates as successful professionals through powerful and expensive advertisements. However, when people get those degrees and leave those schools already knee deep in debt they realize that they have been fooled and those degrees don’t mean anything. This is the type of truth that the makers of this film want people to know.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It would be great if this film got more publicity. This most certainly can be a good solution or at least a start. If you have a cure to a disease but nobody knows about it then what’s the point?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
It is implied that lawmakers should look into specific regulations that would change the way these mega schools do business. Also, it suggests that people who are planning to go to college should research information about the schools they plan to attend.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I found a documentary that brings up yet another problem with college education. In this documentary, however, the main focus is the cost of college. The film makers analyze whether it is still valuable to have a degree and try to find out if it pays off in the end.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/college-conspiracy/
I was also curious about the current tenure situation and was able to find an article that goes over many pros and cons of having it.
http://teachertenure.procon.org/
References
PBS FRONTLINE: College Inc. (2010) | Watch Documentary Free Online. Accessed April 8, 2014. http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/frontline_college_inc_0104/.College Conspiracy. Accessed April 9, 2014. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/college-conspiracy/.
“Should Teachers Get Tenure?” Accessed April 9, 2014. http://teachertenure.procon.org/.